RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J. - (1.)The petitioner assails a show cause notice dated 26 March, 2021 ( "the impugned notice ") issued by the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railways, Kharagpur under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ( "the Act ").
(2.)The facts of this case pertain to a plot of land being Plot No. TE-137 situated Gole Bazar, Kharagpur, District-Paschim Medinipur ( "the premises "). Admittedly, the premises is owned and managed by the respondent Railway Board. Initially, by a license the premises was licensed to one Noor Mohammad (since deceased) exclusively for commercial use. Thereafter, in or about 1985 the said Noor Mohammad executed a Power of Attorney in favour of one Mahendra Kumar Jain (since deceased) for the purposes of carrying on distributorship business of kerosene oil from the premises. Subsequently, it is alleged that there was a sale of the premises by and between the said Mahendra Kumar Jain and his grandson, the petitioner no.1 for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is alleged that the said Mahendra Kumar Jain also executed a Power of Attorney dated 30 January, 2013 in favour of the petitioner no.1 authorising the petitioner no.1 to use the premises for the purposes of running the said business in the name and style of M/s. Jain Traders. There have been several attempts by the petitioner no.1 to have the premises mutated in his name but admittedly there has been no mutation of the premises in favour of the petitioner no.1 till date. It is further alleged that the petitioner had written several different letters to the authorities seeking redressal of his grievances. It is also alleged that the Power of Attorney by the said Noor Mohammad has never been revoked at any point of time and the same is still valid, continuing and binding till date. It is also alleged that the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest have continuously paid rent in respect of the premises to the respondent Railways Authorities and thus a valuable right has accrued in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent no.5 issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to show cause and justify the basis of his occupation in the premises. By a further letter dated 18 February, 2021 the petitioner was held to be an "unauthorised occupant " and proceedings under the Act have been initiated against the petitioner. Hence this petition.
(3.)It is submitted that the petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant and has a lawful right in the premises which has also been recognised by the Railway Authorities. It is also submitted that the petitioner has obtained an indefeasible right in the premises from the original licensee and cannot be treated as an unauthorised occupant. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have been fully aware of the rights of the petitioner and a subsisting legal relationship has been created in view of the fact that the respondent authorities have received occupational charges from the petitioner.